Obama & Clinton: Who's More Likely to Confront Global Warming?

If we ignore global warming much longer, we'll face a world of perpetual disaster, so there's no larger question for presidential candidates than who is more likely to tackle it successfully. Although Obama's and Clinton's positions are similar, he seems far more likely to. The key difference is their ability to mobilize a grassroots base to demand that the necessary changes get passed.

If you look only at the candidate platforms, both Obama's and Clinton's are excellent. John Edwards was the first to come up with a comprehensive plan, but Obama soon did too, followed by Clinton. Both Obama and Clinton focus on renewable energy in their speeches and ads, pledging major incentives and R&D programs for renewables, increased portfolio standards for utilities, and cap-and-trade systems with decreasing limits where permits would be auctioned off, not just given away. Both support green jobs programs to benefit communities. Both talk of continuing to tighten efficiency standards for buildings, vehicles, and businesses. I wish both took firmer stands against nuclear power and liquid coal, but either would offer a strong alternative to our current inaction. Their programs are also both considerably better than that those John McCain suggests. While McCain talks a decent line, especially compared to his numerous climate change-denying Republican colleagues, he equivocates far more on the critical details, supports considerably more modest carbon reduction standards, and this past December abdicated the chance to cast the critical cloture vote and end a Republican filibuster that blocked the recent energy bill's most important provisions. Both Obama and Clinton get the urgency of the issue as much as any mainline American politician who isn't named Al Gore.

But I think Obama is far more likely to pass anything close to the legislation we need, because of his ability to mobilize ordinary citizens. Clinton emphasizes her insider knowledge, her familiarity with process. But in a period when Republicans first prevented Democratic bills from coming to the floor, and then filibustered them if they did, she's mostly been unable to coalesce participants across the admittedly entrenched political divides, unless you count crossing the aisle to support a flag-burning bill or backing the Iraq war. Her track record's no worse than other Democratic Senators, and she did successfully co-sponsor bi-partisan legislation to protect bonuses for wounded veterans and extend family medical leave for wounded soldiers. But it's a record certainly matched by Obama. In his four-year-briefer tenure, he's secured major Republican support to pass a major transparency bill that publicly lists all organizations receiving Federal funds, how much they've received, and the purpose of their grant or contract. He's passed another that provides resources to seek out and destroy surplus and unguarded stocks of conventional arms -- like land mines and shoulder fired missiles -- in Asia, Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. And together with Russ Feingold, he played a key role in developing and passing a law that eliminated gifts of travel on corporate jets from lobbyists to members of Congress and required disclosure of bundled campaign contributions. Even if you ignore his major achievements in the Illinois legislature -- like bringing police chiefs and civil liberties advocates together to craft and support a bill providing clear monitoring of police interrogations, and passing a bill extending health care to 150,000 state residents -- I'd say evidence of insider ability is a wash.

The critical difference between Obama and Clinton is their potential to encourage ordinary citizens to speak out on the changes that we need. And that will be essential. If you strip away the racial connotations, that's actually the core of the debate over Clinton's claim that LBJ was more critical to the passage of the Civil Rights Act than Martin Luther King. For all that I loathe Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam War, he did stake his entire political capital and massive skill to navigate the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts through Congress -- even though he knew it would lose the Democrats the South for a long time to come. But without the massive citizen movement that put civil rights onto the nation's conscience and at the top of its political agenda, he'd never have taken these stands. When you read books like Taylor Branch's wonderful history of America in the King years, it's clear how much both LBJ and Kennedy viewed the civil rights movement as a politically loaded intrusion on their other agendas. Kennedy did all he could to pressure King and other civil rights leaders not to hold the 1963 March on Washington. But as the pressure kept building, they finally answered the movement's call and lent their moral support to it, just as Franklin Roosevelt played a critical role by lending his support to America's resurgent union movement. We'll need a similarly powerful massive movement now -- and ideally a president willing to nurture it -- to overcome the massive dollars and entrenched political clout of companies like Exxon/Mobil, Peabody Coal, and General Motors.

In that context, there's no comparison between the candidates. Obama evokes the power of citizen movements in every speech he gives. He explicitly challenges ordinary citizens to see themselves as part of a lineage of change, with their own political participation following in the footsteps of America's most fundamental movements for justice. Obama evokes those roots when he talks of slaves and abolitionists who "blazed a trail toward freedom through the darkest of nights," and of "workers who organized; women who reached for the ballot...and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land."

Obama explicitly calls for citizens to act beyond the confines of electing him to office. His campaign echoes this call by relying on volunteers to organize themselves, take their own initiative, and find common strength in connecting with each other. The campaign provides materials, talking points, and video images, and is extraordinarily organized in ensuring that every critical precinct gets walked and every key household gets called. They learned the rules of the Texas caucus and Pennsylvania delegate systems, for instance, while the Clinton camp was reduced in the case of Texas to complaining and threatening lawsuits and failed to file a full slate of Pennsylvania delegates. Yet Obama's campaign has also sacrificed a significant amount of control over precisely how their volunteers reach out once they're engaged. In my home state of Washington, operations were run for months by an entirely volunteer group that included several former Bush and Ross Perot supporters in key roles who'd been disillusioned by disasters like Iraq, and then inspired by Obama's words. Their Ohio volunteer phone script, for instance, offers a standard summary of issues to raise, but also explicitly encourages volunteers to talk about their specific reasons for participating. The campaign has also continually helped connect ordinary citizens with each other, consistent with Obama's years as a community organizer and then as a lawyer representing these same grassroots organizations. Because these new connections are created in a way that's likely to last past the election, they'll make these new participants part of an independent base for change that can both help Obama pass key legislation on issues like climate change, and press him to act more strongly when he compromises unduly.

Clinton's campaign, by contrast, has been top-down and controlled from the start, giving local campaigners far less latitude. Initially, she was praised for keeping everyone on message and on a short leash. As her seemingly inevitable lead began to shrink, she's switched to attacking Obama's rhetoric and experience, dismissing his waves of new supporters, and in her most recent ad, evoking Cheney-style fear tactics about who will be in the White House when the phone rings at 3 AM. As an entrenched symbol of loathing to the political right (in a recent Mike Huckabee speech, his lines attacking Hillary got more applause than anything else he said), and whom down-ticket Democrats are terrified of seeing head the ticket in conservative states, she's unlikely to build the overwhelming majority we need to help shift our economy's entire energy base.

I'd love to see America's climate change politics approach Europe's, where conservatives like Germany's Angela Merkel have taken the lead on many efforts and even Nicolas Sarkozy just posed proudly with Al Gore after passing a major French climate initiative. When I met the environmental minister from the conservative party that runs Denmark, she described taking visiting Republican Senators together with climate scientists to see the melting Greenland ice caps. "You're a conservative. I'm a conservative," she said. "I don't understand why the US isn't participating and leading on this issue." But we haven't. We couldn't get even a handful of Senate votes for the Kyoto Treaty. American oil and coal companies like Exxon/Mobil and Peabody have spearheaded the international funding of climate change deniers. Our level of popular denial remains greater than citizens of countries like France, Great Britain, and even Brazil and China, with the latter also passing more stringent automobile fuel standards. We're making major local progress: More than 700 cities have signed the US Mayors Climate Projection Agreement. But we will only achieve the necessary national change if we get enough citizens involved to radically shift our culture and politics.
.
This will take independent efforts like the 1Sky Coalition, the nation-wide StepItUp rallies that preceded it, and the campus organizing that produced the 6,000-student PowerShift conference last November. Whoever wins, we'll need to mobilize more, not less, to see the changes we need. But on an issue this overwhelming and potentially terrifying, we'll need leaders who can help inspire people to take the leap of faith of acting whether or not they know their actions will succeed. Because as Jim Wallis of the religious social justice magazine Sojourners has said, "Hope is believing in spite of the evidence, and then watching the evidence change."

If I look at both Obama's record and his campaign, I see someone who understands the critical role of citizen movements and works to build them as a force capable of creating major change. That's what we've needed to address the major challenges of the past. It's what we'll need to address this ultimate crisis we've created through the combination of technological inventiveness and short-focus blindness. The Clintons may have spoken out against the Vietnam War when they were young, but they've been hedging their bets and distancing themselves from citizen movements ever since. We need a movement-building approach for global climate change -- and for all the other crises America's next president will inherit from Bush's disastrous reign.

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly email [e-mail] with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles

Comments

[EarthBound]

I wanted to let Mr. Loeb know that I appreciated this article and that somebody had brought this issue up. However, I doubt ANYBODY will do much about climate change until Manhattan is mostly underwater and Orlando becomes beach-front property. American politicians are too concerned with "hurting the economy" which would impact their rich friends and their own investments. Remember how the president has repeatedly encouraged us to "go shopping more" even after 9/11 when he was telling us to be very afraid but don't stop shopping (see: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/20/bush-shopping/), but I digress.
I was somewhat amused by the people who posted comments here that global climate change is not happening now and nothing bad has happened or will happen. The information on what is actively happening today with climate change is covered by major reputable sources, but it rarely gets front page or more than a few seconds of air time. The sponsors wouldn't like that, since you might change your shopping habits.
If you need to see proof with your own eyes, one place that you can go visit and watch global warming in action, is our own Glacier National Park in Montana. Soon it will need to be renamed because the glaciers are melting at a rate of 80 feet per DAY. (see: http://www.livescience.com/environment/060324_glacier_melt.html) It would be embarrassing to have a park named Glacier National Park and have the rangers spend all day explaining to kids why there are no glaciers there anymore.
Here are some news articles on populated islands that sank in 2006 or are sinking due to rising sea levels:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/109881/inhabited_tropical_island_in_indian.html
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2006/12/rising_seas_claim_inhabited_is.html
http://dimdima.com/news_room/show_news.asp?q_aid=130&q_title=Sunderbans%E2%80%99%20island%20sinks
http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2006/12/25/global-warming-submerges-populated-indian-island/
If you don't care about islands, perhaps you care about the ice caps melting WAY faster than anybody ever thought they would:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18112630
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18159638
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5221823
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003873003_arcticice07m.html
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071212/NATION/712120387/1020
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091600268.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6927395.stm
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3607212

If you don't believe them, perhaps you would believe the US Pentagon's own report?
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/world-bank-pentagon-warn-cli
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/abrupt-climate-change-faq.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
http://www.envict.org.au/inform.php?menu=4&submenu=478&item=490
Read the actual report for yourself: http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf
If you are not outraged, and concerned, perhaps you have not been paying attention.

[muffinmix]

Its this type of attitude (which it seems both you and American politicians subscribe to), that "fighting global warming hurts the economy" which is why politicians will wait until "Manhattan is underwater."
As a long term investment, fighting global warming will save us billions and billions of dollars. Furthermore, the green industry is thriving and has the ability to produce hundreds of thousands of jobs.

[EarthBound]

To clarify, I am NOT worried about hurting the economy, I apologize if I was not clear. My point was only to explain why our American leaders are not doing more about climate change, and why we are being told climate change is nothing to worry about... just keep shopping (for Hummers, SUVs, recreational pick-up trucks and HUGE power consuming televisions.) Be VERY afraid of other things, but not of what your own activities are doing to wreck the only planet we have. The other point of my prior post was just to address comments made here like "Man made global warming is a hoax.", and get people's head out of the sand. That is why I include so many links to past and current news on climate change.

While I like to work and feed my family as much as anyone, the economy won't matter when the climate is all screwed up and the wars over food and water start (http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf ). It won't matter when millions of people who are displaced from their homes start migrating in mass to other places (think Katrina hurricane refugees times 10,000+) and they show up in your town and my town looking for food and housing. The economy will not matter when the farmlands that we rely on for food dry up like they have in many places in China (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200006/29/eng20000629_44204.html), or when the fresh water supply dwindles to nothing like Australia (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11134967) and even our own Western states (http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/apr/16/water-crisis-supply-dwindles-in-west/).

I totally agree with anyone who believes that the green industry is one of the only ways we might be able to dig our way out of this mess, and help the economies too. There is still some hope, but it does not involve continuing to do what we have always done. It does not help to buy huge energy guzzling things like Hummers, SUVs and pick-up trucks (just because they are "cool") or huge TVs. There is SO much an individual can do by just reducing consumption and waste.

It is clear that our "leaders" will not lead us, so perhaps if we start doing the right things without them, our leaders will say: "There they go! I must hurry after them, for I am their leader!"

[legalclubs]

Man made global warming is a hoax. The facts are in and we are now experiencing a very cold year. The cooling and warning effects are tied to the sun and any man made effect is neglible. All you wacky environmentalist won't admit it now but when we get a few cold years, followed by a few average years what will do with yourselves.

[CindyV]

Mr. Loeb: I think it's a bit premature for you to suggest that Obama would be able to do more for global warming than Hillary. We really need to see what happens in Congressional and Senate races in November. If the Democrats can get greater majorities in both houses, then either candidate, as president, would have a good chance of passing legislation. I know you are an Obama-lover, but really, don't you think could you be a little less obvious about it?

[PaulLoeb]

I agree the Senate majority in particular is critical. But I think whatever gains the Democrats make in the Senate (and I'd argue that Obama will have considerably stronger red state coattails and turn out less of the Republican base), the ability to moblize large numbers of citizens in support of the necessary programs is key. And I think that's a critical difference

[Mormondude]

The temperature dropped more worldwide in 2007 than any other year in recorded history! FACT!!

[gdogs]

If we ignore global warming much longer, we'll face a world of perpetual disaster

You've got to be kidding me right? When will you sheep wake up to the cold reality that your global warming is a farce? I'm all for removing ourselves from the vicious oil cycle, but wake up and read some science. Global warming is not a man made problem. I repeat, global warming is not a man made problem. And further more, climate change is as old as climate itself. A day will come when all of you realize the truly inconvenient truth... that the sun has the greatest effect (much greater than we could ever cause) to our climate.

Let the flames begin, and no I do not work for an oil company, or any other industry that would have a legitimate reason to fight against the fear mongering of global warming.

[Hoelder]

All nice and good. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the main culprit is going to give up SUVs and trucks unless they have to. I am a pessimist. By observation I have seen how deeply concerned people really are. There are people in this country that simple adopt a money is a survival skill attitude and see the simple people die of starvation, extreme heat and cold, thirst and pollution. It is going to be a combination of many, while the CEO's and superwealthy spend their life in a Decameron like scenario telling themselves stories while the plague erradicates 60% of the population. Cynical yes and dark. As long as people do believe that they could be the next "winner" and sitting on the rich's table eating a la carte "American Dream" with a side of "work hard" and "be like them" as dessert. In order to make us turn the corner everybody has to chip in: everybody! It just does not cut it to replace you SUV with a Hybrid Lexus or Silverado. It just is not the correct equation: I got 10 more miles per Gallon: The goal ought to be I got 100mi/Gallon. By the way water vapor or steam is a green house gas as well. So hydrogen cars, even with solar power generated hydrogen still are dangerous. The solution is only: smaller cars, less driving. And now my time word count is getting low. I did not talk about trees and heavy metal pollution and candidates... Certainly a political compromise will not cut it, especially since the roadblock Republicans will sit in a room telling each other stories like in the Decameron.

[PaulLoeb]

That's the hard question--whether our culture is up to making the necessary transformation. It doesn't have to be grim. I visited Copenhagen on a sustainabilty tour this fall, and learned how they went from a car dominated city which looked like a more compact Los Angeles to where cars are now down to 27% for daily commuting trips--because they've created the infrastructure for people to conveniently commute by public transport and bike.

But we're going to have to make some major changes in our culture, and its an open question whether we're ready for them. I think, because of his ability to draw new people in and build coalitions, that Obama has a stronger chance of successfully leading in this, but it's also going to take a massive grassroots effort from all of us

[paulcanning]

I disagree. This used to be the attitude in the UK - cynicism and denial. The most significant turning point was when the conservative leader embraced climate change thus marginalising denialists.

I wouldn't hold Europe - especially the UK - up as a brilliant example because nowhere near enough is being done and we're still wedded to things like air travel growth. But it is possibly to dramatically shift the focus very quickly. The leading right-wing paper, for example, has just launched a major campaign against plastic bags.

What you need is leadership but my problem with Obama is his positions, his starting point, where he will 'inspire' and lead from. Biofuels, for a very good example, will only make things worse and he should know that. [George Monbiot has looked in detail at this http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/]

One thing which I think has helped in the UK is the relentless tone of 'your children's future' - which still, actually, covers the selfish instinct. This is what we're talking about - dramatic change won't effect me except in my dotage.

The real killer, I think, for Americans is understanding that the consumerist gravy train will - has to -end. Only Gore has touched on this and he's only touched. Nader has some grip but just blames Corps for everything.

Another American problem is the 'tech will solve everything/we went to the moon' theme. The scale of change required and the inadequency of where we currently are is not in my reading of the public discourse. There is no quick techno fix and I think this rubs against a lot of 'American dreams'. This apparent apathy is the real crime and legacy of Bush/Cheney (and, yes, does worry a lot of the rest of the world).

Second the link to realclimate.org, it's a relentlessly scientific and focused site.

[paulcanning]

Both back biofuels - because of Iowa. And both pledge far too little - obama's $150 billion over ten years. They also don't talk 'climate change' but 'energy independence'.

Gore sounds like he's talking through gritted teeth when asked to comment on them. I wish American environmentalists would get tougher and not accept crumbs.

[jomira]

Your statements are empty. Show me examples of when Obama have moved people to take action. If your article was a college paper, you would get a "F". You have absolutely no support or facts for your statements.

[kingshmoopy]

jomira, "show me examples of when Obama has moved people to take action," you post. How about building a presidential campaign from the ground-up that has taken on, and by-passed, the "inevitable" candidate for the Democratic nomination? This has been done because Obama has mobilized millions of people to volunteer, donate, work, do whatever they are able and willing to do.

Not only that but he has managed to run a nearly flawless campaign. He is on target and on message at all times, as opposed to Clinton who seems to constantly be searching for her core message. His campaign has very little debt, as opposed to Clinton's campaign, which is drowning in debt. He constantly does better with fund raising--Clinton raised 35 million in Feb., Obama raised 50 million.

And I don't support him because he can give a good speech. I support him because I agree with his policy proposals, I have researched his work in the State Senate and the US Senate, as well as his work prior to public office, and I believe he is the better candidate.

This is a movement that, as much as the Clinton people would love to paint as a cult that revolves around Obama, is based on our own empowerment as citizens to make real and true change happen. This movement was waiting in the wings, and has been for a long time, Obama has brought it on stage by calling us to act. Pretty remarkable.

[LarBear]

People refer to their Hopes about Obama, as if that IS the Obama's...
RUSSERT: Senator Obama, I want you to respond to not holding oversight for your subcommittee. But also, do you reserve a right as American president to go back into Iraq once you have withdrawn with sizable troops in order to quell any kind of insurrection or civil war?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee ( Committee on Foreign Affairs) at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So, it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.
* NOTE: Some NATO Countries are NOT fulfilling their obligation... Most Troops fighting in Afghanistan (including NATO Troops) are American...
Barack runs for President his first term in US Senate...
(Videotape, January 22, 2006): MR. RUSSERT: When we talked back in November of "04, after your election, I said, "There"s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your full six-year term as a United States senator from Illinois?" Obama: "Absolutely."
It's about a Test of Character and Integrity ....... Clearly, Barack puts his political ambition ahead of his State, Country and Troops.... Character/ Integrity TEST = Failed... At least 3 times Barack's Campaign has played the Race Card, when NO mention of Race, or skin color was made... Michelle said people with black skin need to wake up and Vote for the first BLACK President... Oprah Campaigned for the First BLACK President... The Obama Campaign has made direct appeals to Race and Skin Color... Character/ Integrity TEST = Failed...
In Nevada, Barack himself said the Rules for Caucusing clearly favored him... Character/ Integrity TEST = Failed...
Excelon, the largest nuclear operator in the United States helped bankroll Obama's Campaign into the US Senate after he watered down a Bill to REQUIRE Nuclear Power Plant Operators to report leaks... Obama's Campaign Manager is a former Excelon PR Consultant... Obama's watered down Bill died in Committee...
Tested = FAILED

[PaulLoeb]

If you read Dreams From My Father, about a third of the book focuses on his Chicago organizing time. This wasn't a summer internship. He spent about four and a half years working in the most beleaguered low income communities to help them act on issues like poor schools, no jobs, and asbestos-filled apartments. He also organized and ran a major voter registration drive that the Chicago Tribune acknowledged was one of the most successful the city had ever seen.

And then he went back to law school and spent several more years repersenting these same kinds of organizations (Clinton, in contrast, spent nine months with Childrens Defense Fund, but then went into a major corporate law firm and six years on the WalMart board, at a time that they were rolling out their anti-union race to the bottom strategy all over America). We've never had a president to my knowledge with an equivalent community organizing background, and I think it's a powerful asset.

If you follow the links iin my article, you'll see that Obama was also highly effective in building coalitions in the Illinois legislature. You may disagree with Obama's positions, but to call his background empty is to dismiss some very powerful history.

[swoosie1]

Once again, the empty vessel---Obama, provides...You have taken a candidate who has no record on this and applied some sort of personalized, magical projection on to him and by doing so, anoint him the chosen one in regards to energy/nuc­lear/green management, etc. I think you should be prepared to be disappointed, as he has done nothing as a legislator or as a senator, so as a president, we should probably look for more of the same....

[PaulLoeb]

It's sad to see climate change deniers on this site. Go to http://realclimate.org/ and you can read actual climate scientists (not Exxon-funded shlls) talk about why the pattern predicts extreme weather events exactly like what we're seeing worldwide--as opposed to a universal increase of how ever many degrees. So yes, some places will be colder, some warmer, but the overall pattern is still off the charts.

Re nuclear, both Obama and Clinton are more open to nuclear power than I'd like (I wrote my first book on the world's largest nuclear complex), but at least Obama has said "If all the safety issues can be worked out, and that's a big if." And while the major Illinois utility Excelon has donated to him--politics as usual, they're also I think the biggest US wind farm operator as well as operating nuclear sites--they actually stack up pretty well in a otof the rankings.

So yes, citizens are going to have to be active to resist the nuclear industry taking advantage of globa warming to elbow its way back in, but it's a peripheral aspect of Obama's plan.

Finally, I would like to believe that the time has simply come for us to tackle global warming, so we will--but that seriously underestemates the entrenched resistance that leaves us a good decade behind Europe in all sorts of ways. So it's going to take a serious popular movement, and that's what Obama is skllfully nurturing.

[Pquilson]

If being behind Europe in all sorts of ways includes high unemployment, reduced standard of living, higher taxes, and government mandated all sorts of things, then I, for one, prefers to be behind Europe.
All scientists have an agenda, one side or the other, depending on their funding.
If all this makes me a "denier", then so be it. I prefer to think for myself, than to listen to some global warming alarmist, such as yourself.

[kingshmoopy]

Wow, we live in Ireland and I must be blind because your description of Europe certainly doesn't match what I see here.

[ScooterLiddy]

Problem is you are not thinking for yourself. You are letting Limbaugh do your thinking for you.

[wmfor]

Yeah, I teach math. I do indeed encourage my students to think.

But when "thinking for themselves" means breaking the rules of algebra, because it appeals to their instincts, I tend to discourage it.

When I mark √(x ² + y ²) = x + y wrong, I have an agenda, all right. My agenda is getting the correct answer. And I guess you're right that it all has to do with my funding. Not many funds are available for teachers who insist that students can make up their own mathematical laws.

At least I am (so far) spared the need to teach π = 3.000 as an alternate theory, even though it is explicitly stated in the Bible in four disctinct verses.

[wmfor]

oops, in my reply above (or below) huffpo did not like the special characters.

It should read "the square root of the sum of x-squared and y-squared is equal to x plus y".

Hey, huffpo, get with Unicode, willya!

[Pquilson]

Neither of them can pass legislation to combat "global warming". They can suggest, but not pass.

[RISEUPAMERICA]

Obviously since Obama created the bill that lets nuclear energy in his state of Illinoise to not report "minor" waste leaks then he would do the same with global warming and anything to do with the ecology for that matter

[Trace8089]

Neither without a filibuster proof Senate. To see change it must start with voting flat-earth morons out of Congress.

[BeeOplentee]

Global Warming? Are you still pushing that tired old screed?

[Rockyman]

This cold-winter is an anomaly. The trend is for a global-warming climate.......in general!

[legalclubs]

I wish we could all take bets on this one. I really wonder what the supporters of the hypothesis of man-made global warming will do if the next 10 years brings us moderate temperature ranges. You know in the 1970s these same people were pushing global cooling and everyone who didn't believe that the next ice age was right around the corner was a ice age "denier". Once you've been around the block a few times you will start to see these types of tredy scientific claims, which go hand in hand with grant funds, as for exactly what they are. Each side can claim science is on their side, however, the truth won't be revealed until we can see what actually happens over the next 10 years. However, if we experience just normal temperatures over the next 10 years you man-made global warming hypothesis supporters will owe the rest of us a huge apology for all the money and time we wasted.

[TheKiddy]

I think that insider knowledge is going to come in real handy. I also recall that Obama's plan has nuclear in the mix and that he has support from the nuclear industry. Honestly, I am deeply opposed to nuclear no matter the candidate. And, by the way, talk about damning with faint praise. Thanks for the nod to John Edwards but please, he didn't just come up with a plan first, he led the field with a fantastic plan. So, while as a John Edwards Democrat I am grateful for the mention, just a throw-away nod seems pretty inadequate.